normanchateau

Last time you claimed it was his cabinet! Suddenly you remember he was out of power.

Let's hope that there's no election before fall. These numbers say nothing more than Ignatieff can win a minority if an election were held now. By fall, a Liberal majority is far more likely. One of the encouraging Ekos findings was this: "Harper has an approval rating of 91 per cent among decided Conservative voters, although he only has a rating of 14 per cent among Liberal voters, 18 per cent among NDP voters, 28 per cent among Greens and 10 per cent among Bloc voters. "There's a vivid gap between the Conservative base...and everyone else," Graves said. Graves added that the reverse doesn't apply for Ignatieff. The man who has been Liberal leader for almost four months has approval ratings of 33 per cent among Conservative supporters, as well as a rating of 80 per cent among self-identified Liberals. Ignatieff also fares high among other party supporters — he has a rating of 34 among NDP voters, 44 among Greens and 47 among Bloc voters." The dwindling number of Harper supporters see in him something that most Canadians do not. They'll stick with Harper even though a new leader is the CPC's only hope of reversing the polling trend.

You are correct. Marijuana is not legal in the Netherlands but there are no prosecutions for use or possession of small amounts. The same is true in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy and Spain. In Great Britain, use or possession of small amounts is subject merely to a fine: http://www.rism.org/isg/dlp/ganja/backgrou...EnforcProc.html In Canada, possession of even trace quantities is subject to up to six months in jail. There are now 600,000 Canadians who have a criminal record for simple possession. In the Netherlands, possession of up to five marijuana plants is not prosecuted. Under Harper's proposed legislation, Bill C-15, five marijuana plants will likely result in a mandatory jail sentence: http://www.hilltimes.com/html/cover_index....etter2/&c=1 Inexplicably, so-con Harper has chosen to align himself with discredited US policies on marijuana.

I'm being pragmatic. Legalization won't occur without a transition step...decriminalization. Only 55% of Canadians support legalization whereas far more support decriminalization. All three opposition parties will support decriminalization legislation. In a free vote, I suspect even some CPC MPs will support decriminalization even though the extreme anti-libertarians and social conservatives like Harper won't.

Ceylon? What century are you living in? It has been known as Sri Lanka since 1972. If you want to know exactly where Michael Ignatieff stands on the issue of the Tamil Tigers, read his 2006 book Lesser Evil where he makes his revulsion of the terrorist Tamil Tigers clear and suggests how Sri Lanka should deal with them. If you have evidence that Ignatieff's position on the Tamil Tigers has changed, let's hear it.

Excerpts from Dr. Keith Martin in today's Globe and Mail: "Should the 1.5 million Canadians who smoke marijuana every year be considered criminals, prosecuted and receive a criminal record? Should teenagers convicted for possessing a small amount of pot acquire a criminal record that sticks to them for life, hindering their future employment, travel, and educational opportunities? Should the possession of a small amount of pot remain illegal - a position that has been utterly ineffective at reducing its use? Yet, 15,000 Canadians are charged with possession of pot every single year. The only beneficiaries of the status quo are the organized crime gangs that reap massive profits from the prohibition of this weed. In fact, 70 per cent of their revenues come from the trafficking in illegal drugs. In British Columbia alone, the marijuana crop is valued at a staggering $6-billion a year. Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, had it right when he said that the best way to go after organized crime gangs is to go after their money, which is their lifeblood. One way to do this is to decriminalize the possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana and two plants. This would ultimately destroy the domestic pot market for illegal crime gangs and severely weaken their financial underpinnings. However, this initiative to decriminalize marijuana possession must do much more. It must lead to the burial of the ideology and lies that have clouded the facts around substance abuse and deprived our citizens of initiatives that will reduce use, crime and harm. The money saved from not prosecuting people caught with a small amount of pot could be used to fund prevention programs that work — like the Head Start program for children, which has been proven to reduce youth crime 60 percent, decrease drug use, and keep kids in school. The illegal drug trade and substance abuse must be taken out from the shadows, stripped of their myths and put front and centre on the political agenda. We need to treat substance abuse as a medical problem and use the full force of the law against the organized crime gangs that are eating away at the fabric of our society. Only by doing this will we reduce criminality, reduce use and save people's lives. " http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

That plus he's desperate for an issue that might win over a few Conservatives who are abandoning ship. He'd be wiser trying to squeeze votes from centrists.

Here's why Harper is working on scrapping the gun registry: "As the Conservative government continues its relentless campaign to woo voters with their own money and many press releases, recent opinion polls suggest increasing numbers of ungrateful Canadians are instead giving Prime Minister Stephen Harper the cold shoulder. But something is changing in the kingdom, and even the smell of pork doesn't seem to be attracting voters to the Harper cause. The latest Strategic Counsel poll reports the Liberals are continuing their slow but steady climb in popularity across the country, surpassing the Conservatives for the first time since the last election. But the real story is in seat-rich Ontario where Harper's government is getting clobbered at 31%, while the Liberals have soared eight points to become the choice of 45% of decided voters. Ontario isn't their only headache. Wasteland in Quebec The big problem facing Harper is there may be neither the means nor the time to turn things around before the next federal election. Much of Harper's cherished core support is distraught at the country's returning to massive deficits, and by the unprecedented government spending on everything from bridges to fishing derbies. Unfortunately for Harper, the situation is likely to get even worse. That means an endless stream of bad news overwhelming all else. By fall, even Canadians who support the stimulus spending spree will be starting to wonder whether it is achieving anything, why the economy keeps tanking and Canadians are still losing jobs. It is the same story with the war in Afghanistan -- hard to imagine anything there that is going to enhance this government's popularity. Indeed, the recent furor over new Afghan laws allowing rape and general repression of women suggests the longer Canada remains in the war, the more Canadians will blame whatever government is keeping us there. Perhaps the clearest sign of desperation is the bill to kill the rifle registry, recently introduced in the Senate. While the move is a direct sop to the Conservative core, it is a sure-fire vote-loser in the cities where the Liberals are gaining ground. And therein lies what may be Harper's biggest problem of all. Ever since Michael Ignatieff became Liberal leader in the infamous bloodless coup before Christmas, the Harper brain trust has been waiting for the Grits to screw up. Instead, Ignatieff has wisely spent his time bringing money, talent and discipline to his party, keeping a relatively low profile, and leaving Harper and Co. to get run over by the economy." http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2009/04...088736-sun.html

"Big business and the media have remained wary of Reform's evangelical Christian populism and western regionalism. Their fears have been two-fold: that Reform's opposition to abortion and gay rights and its anti-immigrant demagogy would rile much of the population and become an impediment to the adoption of a right-wing economic agenda, and that Reform, which has made repeated unabashed appeals to anti-Quebec bigotry, would fan the movement for Quebec secession, or at the very least favor the interests of capital in western Canada. In founding the Alliance, Manning has sought to address these concerns. The new party has scrapped its opposition to Canada's Official Languages Act, which mandates the federal government to provide services in French and English across the country. As regards the political agenda of the religious right, Manning is attempting a balancing act. He has repeatedly said tax cuts and reforming—i.e., privatizing—health care are much more urgent issues. At the same time, he has sought to rally support from Reform's large core of evangelical Christian activists by stressing his personal support for socially conservative “values” and by saying he favors binding national referenda on such questions as abortion and capital punishment. (The latter proposal, while having a democratic veneer, would in fact make fundamental democratic rights, such as a woman's right to choose, subject to abrogation.)" http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/can-a04.shtml More "claims". Apparently even Preston Manning made "claims" about the Reform Party when he founded the Alliance.

Yet the current anti-libertarian government of Canada believes that sending people to prison for mere possession of marijuana is worth the investment of tax dollars. Stupid, stupid Stephen Harper. No wonder he has so little credibility even when he makes a rational proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada I have little use for Wikipedia but this article actually provides references to support the claims.

Martin whipped his cabinet? :lol: Perhaps you failed to realize in your haste to condemn Paul Martin that in December, 2006, Stephen Harper was Prime Minister.

As though Harper has any remaining integrity...

On December 7, 2006, some Conservatives voted against Harper's discriminatory motion and some Liberals voted for it. There are so-cons, religious nuts and homophobes in both parties. Nonetheless, it was Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, who introduced the motion to take away legislated human rights granted previously by "revisiting" the issue.

As the tape shows, even this had his approval: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...ct.html?ref=rss

Marijuana regulation may happen in California before it does in Canada: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7814 Harper would rather flush billions down the toilet.

Or this: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/12/26/HarperQuebec/

On December 7th, 2006, the House of Commons voted 175-123 in a free vote to reject Stephen Harper's discriminatory definition of marriage. Stephen Harper on December 7, 2006: "We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," said Harper. "I don't see reopening this question in the future." Perhaps Harper should reopen the question. It would please the so-cons, religious nuts and homophobes in his party.

For some reason, Harper has no problem flushing billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet to arrest and prosecute people for selling or possessing marijuana even though a majority of Canadians want it legalized.

Here's part of your answer: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/stephen...eop%5B1%5D.jpeg

Like Stephen Harper, you really don't have a clue, do you? If you want to know exactly where Michael Ignatieff stands on the issue of the Tamil Tigers, read his 2006 book Lesser Evil where he makes his revulsion of the terrorist Tamil Tigers clear and suggests how Sri Lanka should deal with them. If you have evidence that Ignatieff's position on the Tamil Tigers has changed, let's hear it. And please don't use the Holocaust at Treblinka in a futile effort to score political points.

Stephen Harper a Liberal?

You're forgetting the massive revenue in Alberta from slot machines, lotteries and bingo. The percentage of government revenue coming from gambling is higher in Alberta than in any other province in Canada. Who needs a provincial sales tax when you can have a provincial fool tax subsidized entirely by gamblers?

Harper will never deliver a majority. Mulroney was a centrist. Harper is a so-con pretending to be a centrist. He might fool some Canadians but not enough of them to win a majority.

He's had a thing for doing political commentary on Fox News for at least 6 years now. Remember this: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=